I agree about it being crap but found myself picking up some things when I went to the Pittsburgh one last month. It was a better store than I would have thought.

hmm. snooty fox. gotta check it out

Prediction: Columbus will get the first IKEA. They always go where the most young people are. Cincy is last on the list I bet.

Actually The Cincinnati metro has more young people(college students) than the Columbus metro.

hmm. snooty fox. gotta check it out

 

No you don't. It is a a high end consignment shop for older women. It is nothing like an IKEA. I am sure it is a decent place and it fills a demographic but other than that... bah.

 

 

http://www.shopsnooty.com/

hmm. snooty fox. gotta check it out

 

No you don't. It is a a high end consignment shop for older women. It is nothing like an IKEA. I am sure it is a decent place and it fills a demographic but other than that... bah.

 

 

http://www.shopsnooty.com/

 

you were right. we went to the one in west chester. let down. was hoping to find a kick ass dining room table for cheap. crap. did have thebest piza since i moved here at Fratellis though. see restaurant review.

Cincy may have more college students but Columbus retains and attracts more young professionals. That makes all the difference. I think Cincy will get one eventually just not before Columbus. I don't know about Cleveland. It doesnt strike me as any more progressive then Cincy.

Crate & Barrel is really nice. Expensive, but nice. The one here in Cleveland is always crowded.

 

Not a big fan of Ikea. We picked up some things last time we went to Pittsburgh, and most of it's already broken.

Wasn't there a blurb on the news in Cleveland about a month back about Ikea possibly building in Westlake. I could be mistaken, but almost 100% positive that I heard that. It would have been on the Channel 3 morning news about one to two months ago. They probably have archives.

I had never heard of Ikea, but I can remember that she was excited.

I recall when IKEA used to advertise big in the German media, back in the 1970s, with their cartoon moose or deer, "Der Grosse Mobelhaus Aus Schweden" (the big furniture store from Sweden). That was the market..cheap stuff for people living in those big mulitfamily housing projects that where going up all over Europe.

 

In the US IKEA has sort of has some sort of chic thing going on..IKEA is "cool".

COMING SOON...another for the greater Dortmund, Germany area...making it their 16th! Everyone, grab your driving gear! Let's go!

Posted by: Kristina at August 26, 2004 01:55 PM

 

LOL...Dortmund! If they can put one in Dortmund they can put one in Cleveland...Dortmund is Cleveland..beer drinking football fans living in a city of steel mills and fading heavy industry!

An update from the 11/24/04 Cincinnati Business Courier:

 

 

Norwood property owner gets another day in court

 

An injunction hearing is scheduled for this morning to determine whether a Norwood property owner, whose rental home has been acquired by the city through eminent domain, can be evicted pending an appeal.

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/dailyedition.html#3

Crate & Barrel is expected to open at Rookwood Exchange in 2006.  The holdup is the eminent domain battle going on.

Here's an update from the 12/2/04 Cincinnati Business Courier:

 

 

Ruling gives Rookwood developers green light in property dispute

 

A Hamilton County Court judge today ruled against a motion for injunction that would have stalled development of the proposed Rookwood Exchange project in Norwood.

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/dailyedition.html#7

From the December 10, 2004 print edition

Cavalry's ranks thinned: One Rookwood holdout to sell; second possible

Lisa Biank Fasig

Courier Staff Reporter

 

One of five Norwood home and business owners who refused to sell their properties to make way for a mixed-use development has dropped out of the fight, and a second might do the same.

 

David Dahlman, owner of the Holistic Center on Edmondson Avenue, said he agreed to sell his building to Rookwood Partners for an undisclosed sum. The deal, likely to be valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars, places him with 65 homeowners who in 2003 agreed to make way for the proposed Rookwood Exchange.

Though the story doesn’t mention it, the city of Norwood agreed to hold off on a vote.  From the 12/29/04 Cincinnati Business Courier:

 

 

Norwood to look at urban renewal ordinance

 

Norwood City Council tonight will consider updating its laws regarding urban renewal, a development process that can require buying private property for the sake of private development.

 

While opponents of eminent domain are crying foul, a lawyer for the city said the ordinance hasn't been changed since it was written in 1963, and that it needs to be updated.

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/dailyedition.html#2

One has given up...from the 1/11/05 Enquirer:

 

 

Norwood owner agrees to sell

Doctor drops fight with developer

The Enquirer

 

One of five property owners challenging Norwood's use of eminent domain to take their property has dropped out of the fight.

 

Dr. David Dahlman, of the Hyde Park Holistic Center, decided to settle privately with Jeffrey R. Anderson Real Estate and Miller-Valentine Group, said Tim Burke, who represents Norwood in the case.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050111/NEWS01/501110386/1077/NEWS01

 

Everyone's home will be "blighted".  From the 1/12/05 Enquirer:

 

 

Norwood delays renewal ordinance

By Steve Kemme

The Cincinnati Enquirer

 

NORWOOD - After listening to some residents criticize a proposed revision of Norwood's urban renewal ordinance, City Council decided Tuesday to hold a town meeting before voting on it.

 

Several council members who support the revised ordinance said a town meeting, which some residents had requested, would help answer questions and concerns.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050112/NEWS01/501120393/1056

 

Another win for the developers, from the 1/20/05 Cincinnati Business Courier:

 

 

Rookwood Exchange developers win another round

 

A state Court of Appeals today rejected an appeal that would have stalled development of the proposed Rookwood Exchange project in Norwood.

 

The Court of Appeals, First Appellate District of Ohio was asked to overturn an earlier, county court ruling that denied a motion to prevent developers from taking the property.

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/dailyedition.html#3

 

Maybe they can get on with the development now.  I would jump for joy if someone paid me $280K for one of those homes.

Norwood Homeowners Refuse To Give Home Up To Development

 

Reported by: Mariah Gray

 

2/1/2005 5:51:26 PM

 

Will they be tossed out with their belongings, or allowed to stay until the courts rule?

 

That's what an elderly couple fighting a development company in Norwood is waiting to find out.

People you better get out of the way...

 

After thinking about this a long while. I dont think it is right either. These people own houses, its where they live lol, is crate and barrel more important than their american dream. They have , what an acre of parking in the middle of rookwood, suck it up build a garage and put it there, goodness gracious.

They are living the American Dream.  They are getting twice market value for their home and were even offered a free cruise.  People all over the country had had to sacrifice for the betterment of America.  While the merits can be debated endlessly, why does 1 family get to hold up other peoples lives by holding out?  You have other residents there that have been in limbo for 2 years now that have settled.  They don't get paid until all the residents are gone.  If Rookwood doesn't expand, the retail will go on some farm land in Monroe and then we will all be bitching that shits keeps moving to the outer burbs.

 

We can't have it both ways people...

 

I would love for someone to offer me twice market value for my home. 

While the merits can be debated endlessly, why does 1 family get to hold up other peoples lives by holding out? You have other residents there that have been in limbo for 2 years now that have settled. They don't get paid until all the residents are gone. If Rookwood doesn't expand, the retail will go on some farm land in Monroe and then we will all be bitching that shits keeps moving to the outer burbs.

 

Why do all of the other families get to decide what this one family has to do?

 

You're right--it's an endless debate.

 

I just think it's a really bad trend.

I see both sides of it really, I am really on both sides and it does suck that one family is resposible for this hold up, but then it sucks for them they have to move. However at 2 times market value and a cruise it does certainly pad it. You could move up a whole level in neighborhood stature and get a new car haha. Those houses really ARENT that pretty lol.

Where was the cruise? If it was Alaskan Cruise I would accept the offer but if it was bahamas 3 day I would have to pass and chain myself to the toilet.

Norwood holdouts pack up, move out

 

By Steve Kemme

Enquirer staff writer

 

NORWOOD - After fighting for more than two years to stay in the house they have lived in for half their lifetimes, Joy and Carl Gamble Jr. have decided to pack up and move out.

 

A small moving van on Wednesday took some of the Gambles' possessions from their Atlantic Avenue house while they live temporarily at their daughter's house in Independence.

Seems to me like the issue here is defining what can be taken by eminent domain and what cannot.  Obviously, that ain't set in stone...I would think private development ought not get to use eminent domain, and I'm really surprised that they ended up getting to here.  The blight argument was just nonsense.

 

What are the laws regarding eminent domain?

Seems to me like the issue here is defining what can be taken by eminent domain and what cannot. Obviously, that ain't set in stone...I would think private development ought not get to use eminent domain, and I'm really surprised that they ended up getting to here. The blight argument was just nonsense.

 

What are the laws regarding eminent domain?

 

These days, it seems that the laws are "property owner gets screwed every time".  At least, that's the way the courts rule.

 

I'm not up on Ohio eminent domain law.  Maybe you should Google it.

Well, according to this "Ohio State University Fact Sheet":

The types of entities authorized by the Ohio legislature to appropriate private property are summarized here:

 

State Government. The executive branch does not have authority to condemn property, but a number of state departments, commissions, boards, authorities, and officers may exercise eminent domain.

 

Local Government. Municipalities and their boards or commissions may exercise the power of eminent domain for any public purpose. County commissioners, on the other hand, may appropriate property only for specific uses, such as parks, county ditches, highways, and county office buildings. Township trustees are limited to taking property only if needed for parks, cemeteries, or certain buildings.

 

Public and Private Companies. The Ohio legislature allows a public or private company to exercise eminent domain for the purpose of providing utility services such as telephone, electric, water, and gas transporting services. Public and private companies must follow the same eminent domain procedures as a government agency.

 

From this, it looks like the only place Rookwood might fit is under Local Government: "Municipalities and their boards or commissions may exercise the power of eminent domain for any public purpose."  Those purposes have meet the definition of Public Use, and "the Ohio Supreme Court has loosely defined "public use" as a use that is required for the public’s safety, health, interest, or convenience."  The paper then lists examples: "Examples of uses deemed valid public uses by Ohio courts include streets, roads, highways, scenic and recreational uses, public buildings, water improvements, correctional facilities, airports, cemeteries, waste-disposal plants, utilities, urban-renewal projects, and railroads."

 

I guess we need to add "lifestyle shopping centers" to the list...

 

Anyway, I assume it's probably more nuanced than this, and I'll try to go back and read up on how this particular case interfaced with Eminent Domain law, but if anyone else has something to throw in, I'd love to learn from folks who know how this stuff works!

From what I gather from reading back thru the newspaper articles posted here, the city exercised its right to Eminent Domain for the public use of "urban renewal".  And apparently to qualify for urban renewal, the area involved must be considered deteriorating or blighted.  Judge Myers ruled that the area was not "blighted" or "deteriorated", but that it was "deteriorating" (actually, she ruled that Norwood abused its discretion in finding the area "blighted" or "deteriorated", but did not abuse its discretion in finding the area to be "deteriorating").  And apparently some of the reasons for finding the area to be "deteriorating" are the development that's been going on around them:

But under cross-examination by Tim Burke, attorney for Norwood, Phillips admitted that noise can be a deteriorating condition, the construction of Interstate 71 created dead-end streets with inadequate turn-arounds, and the widening of Edmondson Road significantly reduced several front yards.

 

So an Interstate constructed in the 1970's is suddenly deteriorating the area...and then you develop around the area, which deteriorates it...I took 30 feet of your front lawn, so therefore your property is deteriorating.  Let me take the rest of it now!

 

I love what Rookwood does for the neighborhood - upscale retail and dining and office space in a blue collar neighborhood helps home values, roots the community, builds the tax base, diversifies the economy...not all of it is upscale, either - Rookwood Pavilion has a TJ Maxx and a Steinmart and a BW3's and a Boston Market and a SuperCuts, lots of places for every budget...it's not out in Sprawlville, and it's an asset to Cincinnati and Norwood both.  And Rookwood Exchange is a natural extention.

 

However, it does seem like an abuse of Eminent Domain.  The only reason the area's blighted is because there's been business built around it.  That just doesn't seem fair.  Eminent Domain, by its very nature, isn't fair - but when it's a road or a utility, that's a lot different than when it's a shopping mall...

Well, look what we have here!  From the local news briefs of the 2/5/04 Enquirer:

 

 

Threats cancel town hall meeting

 

Norwood's town hall meeting scheduled for today on proposed revisions to its urban renewal ordinance has been canceled because of threatening phone calls and e-mails to city officials.

 

The meeting will be rescheduled. Mayor Tom Williams requested the cancellation.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050205/NEWS01/502050386/1056/news01

 

From the 2/23/05 Enquirer:

 

 

Court ruling suspends Rookwood demolition

Homeowners are appealing eminent-domain decision

By Steve Kemme

Enquirer staff writer

 

NORWOOD - The Ohio Supreme Court has put the brakes on - at least temporarily - developers' plans to bulldoze two Norwood houses that had been taken by eminent domain.

 

The court ruled Tuesday that the developers of the planned Rookwood Exchange complex must refrain for the time being from demolishing the homes of two Norwood property owners who are fighting to keep their property in an eminent-domain court battle.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050223/NEWS01/502230390/1056

 

This issue has gone too far. How many courts and years has this taken? One stubborn family is ruining the lives of approx 30 other families for nothing more than principal. I would be fumed at the one holdout family rather than the city of Norwood if I lived there. We all know Norwood is Hyde Park’s playground. If someone was given me twice market value for my home they can do whatever they please with my property. I think on principal, if this didn't go through the developer should demolish ever home and business around the home in question just out of spite and build Rookwood Exchange around them.

 

If you are against this issue than you can’t argue about the sprawl in West Chester… The two go hand and hand. I truly believe that. Urban renewal and reinventing inner burbs is crucial to the success of older neighborhoods that don’t have the clout of Hyde Park and Mt. Lookout to keep their original fabric. If eminent domain isn’t used than retail will go north. While there are many areas that have abandoned buildings that could be redeveloped at less the hassle, Rookwood is a ideal location and by the traffic patterns around Rookwood, I can see why the developer wants to expand.

This issue has gone too far. How many courts and years has this taken? One stubborn family is ruining the lives of approx 30 other families for nothing more than principal.

 

What...the Constitutional "principal" of private property?  Anyway, we'll see what happens in the New London case.  I'm betting the Exchange is breaking ground this fall.

Merged with the "Norwood vs. neighborhood" thread.

 

Here's some info from the Oakley Community Council Land Use and Zoning report, February 2005.  It looks like they may start work even with the lawsuits going on:

 

 

Rookwood Exchange

 

...In spite of the ongoing court cases, the developer is moving forward. Demolition and construction is set to begin soon. Recent media reports indicate portions of the project may be open for business in 2005. The OCC needs to exercise our contacts within the Ohio Department of Transportation to determine what is being done to minimize traffic congestion in the area.

 

http://www.oakley09.org/zoning02-2005.htm

 

I believe Norwood tried to use a "blight" designation to get Eminent Domain approved here. That category has long been recognized as a permissible use of eminent domain.  Of course, it has been applied to areas that many people would not consider blighted, but if property owners don't fight back, then the blight declaration is pretty much just a procedural step.

 

To seize (with compensation) areas that are not even arguably blighted for economic development purposes is a much more contentious issue. In fact the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in a case (Kelo v. City of New London) on this very issue a couple weeks ago.  You can find all the info you wanted about the Kelo case and more at:

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2004/february.html

Well, I know this guy didn't want to move, but he got $500,000 for a building he paid $77,000 for in June of 2001.  Not too shabby.

 

Final Norwood property owner forced to sell

Lisa Biank Fasig

Courier Staff Reporter

 

A judge has awarded the owner of Wilker Design in Norwood $500,000 for his property as part of the ongoing eminent domain proceedings involving the city and four hold-out property owners.

 

Motz said he intends to appeal the court decision that cleared the way for the city to forcibly acquire his property. But at the same time, he does not hold out much hope he will get to keep the building at the corner of Edwards Road and Edmondson Avenue.

I thought this was a pretty level-headed editorial.  Stop making sense!  From the 3/25/05 editorial section of the Enquirer:

 

 

Norwood must nurture precious asset: its great neighborhoods

By John Dietz

Guest columnist

 

Now that the fate of Norwood's smallest neighborhood seems all but certain, except for the possible intervention of higher courts, it's time to seriously consider where Norwood goes from here.

 

While new commercial development along Interstate 71 is the city's response to propping up its tax base, there are only so many neighborhoods that can be demolished before there is a real political backlash at the ballot box.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050325/EDIT02/503250350/1021/EDIT

 

I don't think anyone's manning the ship at the website since 2003, but it's pretty interesting nonetheless.

 

Under "Blight study", there are photos of over 100 structures that are in the path of demolition.

 

http://www.norwoodblight.com/index.html

 

Well, it's beginning.  From the 4/9/05 Enquirer:

 

Crews in Norwood conduct pre-demolition work at sites on Atlantic Avenue near Edwards Road and Interstate 71 to make way for the Rookwood Exchange project.  The Enquirer/Ernest Coleman

 

House razings to begin

Norwood sites must make way for complex

By Steve Kemme

Enquirer staff writer

 

NORWOOD - The bulldozers are digging up front yards.

 

Cinergy crews are disconnecting gas lines to the houses. Construction fences block access to some houses from the street. Signs warn motorists to stay off Atlantic and Garland avenues.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050409/NEWS01/504090355/1077/news01

 

Now it's official.  From the 4/13/05 Enquirer:

 

 

Norwood begins demolition on Rookwood Exchange site

By Steve Kemme

Enquirer staff writer

 

NORWOOD - The bulldozers today began demolishing houses on the site of the planned Rookwood Exchange, a $125 million complex of offices, shops, housing and restaurants.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050413/NEWS01/504140302

 

Just ran by there over lunch (I had to run home, so I just detoured a bit).  I took a little movie as I drove down Edwards towards Madison.  Here's the link - probably best to right-click and "Save As".  I may remove the file after a while because it's pretty big, but if it's gone and you want to see it, just PM me for it.  Sorry for the bumpiness - I'm definitely not a cinematographer!

 

Anyway, everything's fenced off, and it looks like a little utility digging has happened so far, but nothing else, at least that I could see from the road:

 

 

Wow...cool video clip!

Looks like the demolition has begun in earnest:

------------

Razing begins; dispute not over

In Norwood, three buildings still stand alone in defiance

 

By Steve Kemme

Enquirer staff writer

 

NORWOOD - With one downward swipe, the claw-like steel bucket on the end of the bulldozer's hydraulic arm smashed the large porch of the two-story brick house.

 

Like the mighty hand of King Kong, it swung sideways and crumpled an exterior wall. In all, it took the bulldozer only 20 minutes to reduce the house on Atlantic Avenue to a dusty heap of bricks and boards.

Any hopes to correct Edwards Road around this area? 

This just drags on and on...from the 4/18/05 Enquirer:

 

 

Norwood fight back in court

By Sharon Coolidge

Enquirer staff writer

 

A local developer has begun bulldozing property off I-71 to build a multi-million dollar office and shopping complex in Norwood, but three property owners in the area aren't giving up their battle to stay.

 

The Washington D.C.-based Institute for Justice brought its fight today to the Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals, arguing Norwood never should have been allowed to seize the owners' property through eminent domain because the property wasn't deteriorating. Norwood city law permits the city to use eminent domain if the property is blighted, deteriorated and deteriorating.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050418/NEWS01/504190302

 

Since the demo is well underway, looks like the fight will probably be over for good

 

Its a sad day in America when private property is taken from citizens and given to private entities for their profit.